Monday, May 14, 2012
The Sacred and Inviolable Aspect of Carrying a Gun
Guns should not be verboten, that's another trick on the part of the gun-rights fanatics. We're not talking about banning guns. We're talking about removing the sacred and inviolable aspect of carrying a gun so that it can be reasonably controlled. Too many people prove themselves to be unfit and incapable of responsibly managing this activity, therefore restrictions are required. All the talk about "rights" interferes with that necessary process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"All the talk about "rights" interferes with that necessary process."
ReplyDeleteThose pesky rights sure do get in the way of necessary processes. Stupid rights.
Yeah, like the god-given right to own and carry on my person a sewing kit just in case I tear my clothes.
DeleteYou do have that right. Can the government say that anyone who carries a needle and thread on their person will be thrown in jail?
DeleteYup, I support your right to carry needle and thread, even though you might go nuts and sew your mouth shut with them.
DeleteMikeb, we've shown you repeatedly that the people who are causing the problems that you discuss here aren't the ones who have gone through the process of getting a carry license. You insist on conflating criminals and the irresponsible with those of us are the opposite.
ReplyDeleteBut let's also talk about rights. If gun ownership and carry isn't a right, what's to keep the government from deciding that private citizens having guns isn't acceptable at all? Chicago demonstrated what happens when the government doesn't believe in our rights. That city took away the ability to own a handgun legally. You ask us to trust you, but we've seen what is the result of not regarding firearms possession as a right. No thanks, and no deals.
"Mikeb, we've shown you repeatedly that the people who are causing the problems that you discuss here aren't the ones who have gone through the process of getting a carry license."
DeleteGreg, you're losing tough with your inner honest child. I post daily stories of lawful gun owners who fuck up. It's not just the criminals, man.
I don't have an inner child, so lay off the Oprah Winfrey platitudes. Most of the people you write about here are sketchy characters who do stupid or criminal things. You insist on calling them lawful gun owners, but that's doubtful in many cases. Nevertheless, I'm willing to accept some bad gun owners just to keep lawful gun owners safe from government intrusion.
DeleteWINNING:
ReplyDeletehttp://newsok.com/oklahoma-gov.-mary-fallin-says-shell-sign-open-carry-gun-measure/article/3675105
That's not winning. Open carry does your movement more harm than good. It shows you for the nuts and fanatics you are (not all of you, but too many).
Delete"All the talk about "rights" interferes with that necessary process. "
ReplyDeleteThe necessary process of totalitarianism?
"We're not talking about banning guns."
Only because you realize that you have to conceal your true intentions.
Oh, and you know the true intentions of others. That fits in perfectly with the fantasy world you probably live in.
DeleteCalling reasonable restrictions totalitarianism is ridiculous exaggeration with a cool buzz-word thrown in for effect.
When others provide ample evidence for drawing conclusions, we have a good idea of their intentions, yes. And while you call your proposals reasonable, every totalitarian considers his proposals to be the reasonable and necessary actions of a state to keep its people "safe."
Delete"ridiculous exaggeration with a cool buzz-word thrown in for effect."
DeleteMuch like "hidden criminals".